chlorine in tap water

OK
bias
I do not want my tap water chlorinated.
This will be coming up during our home-owners meeting.

my case

Negative health effects of chlorinated water:
New York State Department of Health
When chlorine enters the body as a result of breathing, swallowing, or skin contact, it reacts with water to produce acids. The acids are corrosive and damage cells in the body on contact.
--------------------------------------------------
According to the U.S. Council of Environmental Quality, the cancer risk to people who drink chlorinated water is 93 percent higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.
---------------------------------------------------
Washington st. d.o.h.
When chlorine is added to water, it reacts with organic substances that occur naturally in the water. The compounds formed are called “disinfection byproducts (DBPs).” The amount formed depends on the amount of chlorine used and contact time between the organic substances and the chlorine.
Some studies of human health effects from exposure to chlorinated water show increased risk to cancer and reproductive and developmental effects.
-------------------
According to the BreastCancerFund.org,“One common factor among women with breast cancer is that they all have 50 to 60 percent higher levels of these chlorination by-products (THMs) in their fat tissue than women without breast cancer . . .”
"Long-term drinking of chlorinated water appears to increase a person's risk of developing bladder cancer as much as 80 percent,”as documented in a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Some 45,000 Americans are diagnosed every year with bladder cancer.
"The drinking of chlorinated water has finally been officially linked to an increased incidence of colon cancer. An epidemiologist at Oak Ridge Associated Universities completed a study of colon cancer victims and non-cancer patients and concluded that the drinking of chlorinated water for 15 years or more was conducive to a high rate of colon cancer,"

OK
Is my bias leading me to seek out only that which supports my bias?
Or
Is chlorinating our water really not a good and safe thing to do?

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

The benefits of chlorinated water are generally considered to far outweigh the deleterious effects.
Mold and bacteria (which WILL grow in standing water of your whole water system) will be far more likely to make you sick, if not kill you, than these other effects combined.

http://encognitive.com/node/2905"The most critical perspective, however, lies in considering the consequences of not chlorinating water. The World Health Organization estimates that 25,000 people die each day from diseases carried by inadequately sanitized water. In a year, that's 9.1 minion deaths. The risk of death from not chlorinating water, then, is of gargantuan proportions when compared with the chances of contracting cancer from drinking chlorinated water."
Also:"As with any population-based study, finding an association between some factor -- such as chlorinated water -- and increased disease -- in this case rectal and bladder cancers -- does not necessarily mean that the factor is responsible. Chlorination may only serve as a marker for some other aspect of drinking water quality or an associated geographic or demographic variable that causes the cancers."

(Now, they're surely including third world countries, but I think the point is, we have clean water here in our first world countries because we chlorinate it. i.e. our water supply - if not chlorinated - might end up being just as bad as in 3rd world countries. That 25,000 might rise quite a bit.)

One common factor among women with breast cancer is that they all have 50 to 60 percent higher levels of these chlorination by-products (THMs) in their fat tissue than women without breast cancer . . .”

Click to expand...

Long time since I have been involved in statistical analysis but that looks dodgy to me

In a large population group with access to public chlorinated water along with means to remove the chloride and also access to buy chlorine free water. We are expected to believe a large portion of females have lower levels of chlorination by-products because, presumably because they remove the chlorine or buy chlorine free water

While men do not get breast cancer (correction RARELY get breast cancer) I wonder if other members of the household were tested

It would stand to reason that other members of the women with breast cancer would have 50% to 60% higher levels of these chlorination by-products in their fat tissue than other members of households of women without breast cancer

Apart from my reading of the stats (which could well be wrong) have these by-products been shown to have a causal link - apart from the stats?
ie "the by-product becomes involved in the blah blah blah process which then enters the blah blah blah cycle changing blah blah blah into the blah blah blah type from which the cancer cells form"

our h20 system serves 18 taps
not exactly a municipal water supply
ever since we had the main lines replaced, we have been having sporadic e coli positives, and
one of the neighbors suggested installing a chlorination system.( to which I am opposed)
One neighbor thinks that as the weather warms, we will be more likely to have more positive tests.
Considering that most strains of e. coli are harmless, I see little value in chlorination without knowing the exact strain of e.coli.
I have not queried the lab about strains (yet)

Thanks for the input

..................................
yeh, some of the sources i found seemed to be on the edge of credibility, and some had a product to sell.

It would stand to reason that other members of the women with breast cancer would have 50% to 60% higher levels of these chlorination by-products in their fat tissue than other members of households of women without breast cancer

Click to expand...

Women have more fat tissue on average than males so would accumulate more toxins but not just chlorine, every other toxin that they came into contact with over a lifetime.

Chlorinating water tends to keep people from being sickened or killed by pathogens. It works by being toxic to pathogens, so naturally some of that toxicity remains. It does, however, have a very, very minor impact on overall human health.

It seems to me that, without going into specifics, any best possible scenario would involve keeping the water chlorinated as long as possible - i,e, right up to your tap - and only then eliminating it, so you do not consume the Cl. This meets everyone's needs, and is the safest, with virtually no downside, except cost.

I'd hazard that filtering technologies have improved quite a bit over the years, and chloramine removal is both cheap and reliable.

I read an article - then subsequently lost track of it - that said chlorine is not used very much anymore, in favour of chloramine, which does not evaporate at nearly the same rate as chlorine. That is the reason it is preferred. In fact, the article specifically said that the old method of leaving the water to stand for 24 hours is insufficient to offgas chloramine.

"recent studies indicate the formation of toxic byproducts in drinking water may be higher when utilities use chloramines. These studies also indicate that chloramine causes more dangerous byproducts than other treatment alternatives, such as ozone or chlorine dioxide."

KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

If only that the chlorine in your tap water was the most pressing concern in your life... the most dangerous thing you had to worry about.

Sorry, just wow... some of the reactions here were priceless.

Yes, E.Coli is generally harmless... and yet, it can kill you quite easily, especially if one is immunocompromised for any reason. Not to mention a host of other nasty organisms that can take root in untreated, stationary water...

I'd hazard that filtering technologies have improved quite a bit over the years, and chloramine removal is both cheap and reliable.

Click to expand...

What the guys tell me:
The usual take (guys who homebrew beer, aquarium hobbyists, people caring for exotic animals ) is that you need a reverse osmosis filter with activated catalytic charcoal to get chloramine out without added chemicals. The charcoal will work by itself, but the quantities needed are large - the reverse filters slow down and extend the contact time, among other benefits, allowing less charcoal.

But a system as small as described should be amenable to oldfashioned chlorine dioxide and the like, more easily removed with standard filters. And if e. coli bacteria are turning up in your system, down the road you'll want something to filter anyway - chlorine or no chlorine.

Btw: vitamin C works - small amount stirred in, then some time to allow outgassing of the breakdown products.